This is probably one of those well-trodden subjects that periodically gets posted on this and probably all of the UFO/ET forums on the net...but I was just wondering if anyone else was as undecided as I am as to the validity of Colonel Philip Corso and the extraordinary claims that he makes in his book 'The Day After Roswell'?

When I first became familiar with the content of the Colonel's book , my first thought was..."There's no way that this is for real!"...For one thing..I couldn't believe that a man in his position would suddenly make such a u-turn from the absolute-secrecy ethos that was required for him to hold the responsible positions that his C V boasts!

The other major 'bell-ringer' to my mind was his assertions that many modern technological developments were the direct result of the 'back engineering of alien technology' which was allegedly gleaned from the Roswell UFO crashes of 1947....A quick google search of the development history of Fiber Optics,Image Intensifiers, Lazers,Integrated Circuits etc, seems to scupper that idea in a matter of minutes.

And then the killer blow for the Colonel's 'fantastic claims' for me ,was when I read the opinions of some of my 'most respected UFO researchers' on the matter...! Stan Friedman,Kevin Randle and Brad Sparks among others. And not to put too fine a point on it.. the general consensus was that 'Philip Corso was a big fat liar'!..and they kindly pointed out all of the loopholes and falsities in the crazy made up story, and that Mr Corso was nothing but a egotistical fantasist!

And so with their assertive condemnation and my own personal reservations I left it there!..satisfied that it was just another sad episode in my ETH quest to be brushed under the carpet!

And then just today , as quick off the mark and cutting edge as I always am...I came across this article in 'The Exopolitics Institute' from 2006. In which a man that I do not normally pay much heed to 'Michael E. Salla, Ph.D' (because of his championing of Bob Dean,Lohn Lear and the likes, whom I consider to be nothing but lying charlatans in ufology.) ,..which I believe convincingly trashes the unfounded misgivings of the aforementioned 'three wise men' Friedman,Randle and Sparks!...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

meteorlima 11

This is probably one of those well-trodden subjects that periodically gets posted on this and probably all of the UFO/ET forums on the net...but I was just wondering if anyone else was as undecided as I am as to the validity of Colonel Philip Corso and the extraordinary claims that he makes in his book 'The Day After Roswell'?

When I first became familiar with the content of the Colonel's book , my first thought was..."There's no way that this is for real!"...For one thing..I couldn't believe that a man in his position would suddenly make such a u-turn from the absolute-secrecy ethos that was required for him to hold the responsible positions that his C V boasts!

The other major 'bell-ringer' to my mind was his assertions that many modern technological developments were the direct result of the 'back engineering of alien technology' which was allegedly gleaned from the Roswell UFO crashes of 1947....A quick google search of the development history of Fiber Optics,Image Intensifiers, Lazers,Integrated Circuits etc, seems to scupper that idea in a matter of minutes.

And then the killer blow for the Colonel's 'fantastic claims' for me ,was when I read the opinions of some of my 'most respected UFO researchers' on the matter...! Stan Friedman,Kevin Randle and Brad Sparks among others. And not to put too fine a point on it.. the general consensus was that 'Philip Corso was a big fat liar'!..and they kindly pointed out all of the loopholes and falsities in the crazy made up story, and that Mr Corso was nothing but a egotistical fantasist!

And so with their assertive condemnation and my own personal reservations I left it there!..satisfied that it was just another sad episode in my ETH quest to be brushed under the carpet!

And then just today , as quick off the mark and cutting edge as I always am...I came across this article in 'The Exopolitics Institute' from 2006. In which a man that I do not normally pay much heed to 'Michael E. Salla, Ph.D' (because of his championing of Bob Dean,Lohn Lear and the likes, whom I consider to be nothing but lying charlatans in ufology.) ,..which I believe convincingly trashes the unfounded misgivings of the aforementioned 'three wise men' Friedman,Randle and Sparks!...

1963,YES! Philip Corso was telling the truth according to Chuck Wade who was courier for Colonel Corso at the time.Chuck was born in Corona New Mexico in 1939,his Dad Jesse Wade owned the bar where Mac Brazel stopped on his way to report the incident on his ranch. Chuck has been investigating the crash of a ufo on the Plains of San Augustine along with Art Campbell,Gerald Anderson and others have been to the crash site numerous times and have recovered many artifacts. More Information ...My link

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

meteorlima 11

1963,Yes Philip Corso was telling the truth according to Chuck Wade who was courier for Colonel Corso for some time but it was ghost written by Bill Birnes and he did not confirm facts before publishing the book.Chuck was born in Corona New Mexico in 1939,his Dad Jesse Wade owned the bar where Mac Brazel stopped on his way to report the incident on his ranch. Chuck has been investigating the crash of a ufo on the Plains of San Augustine along with Art Campbell,Gerald Anderson and others have been to the crash site numerous times and have recovered many artifacts. More Information ...My link

Isn't this one of the men supposed to be *Ahem* "fighting for the truth"? He does not seem so confident in the claims made like most people who have had a look at the case.

92 corrections!

Corso is one place that skeptics and believers generally come to an understanding. How many falsifications are required before lies become recognised for what they are?
Edited April 16, 2012 by psyche101

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

meteorlima 11

Isn't this one of the men supposed to be *Ahem* "fighting for the truth"? He does not seem so confident in the claims made like most people who have had a look at the case.

92 corrections!

Corso is one place that skeptics and believers generally come to an understanding. How many falsifications are required before lies become recognised for what they are?

Stan says "technically wrong all over the place,well you can blame that on the co-author maybe" *Ahem* the co-author is Bill(ufo hunter)Birnes. Bottom line...three spacecraft crashed the night of July 4,1947 in New Mexico.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

booNyzarC 3,014

Simply due to the fact that every technology he references has a clear history of development outside of this Roswell mythology, we know that the bulk of his story is completely false.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that he may have genuinely believed some of the stuff he claimed, but let's face it, for a career military man he didn't really rise very far. He may very well have been given a filing cabinet with stuff in it. But if he was given anything, I'd bet that it was a prank.

Share on other sites

1963 405

Simply due to the fact that every technology he references has a clear history of development outside of this Roswell mythology, we know that the bulk of his story is completely false.I'm willing to accept the possibility that he may have genuinely believed some of the stuff he claimed, but let's face it, for a career military man he didn't really rise very far. He may very well have been given a filing cabinet with stuff in it. But if he was given anything, I'd bet that it was a prank.

Hi Boony and thanks for the reply buddy!

The historical references that you mentioned for the technology that the Colonel claims to have covertly seeded upon various industries, is the main bugbear that I have with this fantastic claim!..The only way around that is if the 'covert-actions' of the 'foreign technology department' could have planted false historical development records in the appropriate scientific journals and reference books...and that pill is a little too hard for me to swallow without any proof!

As to your other concerns about the Colonels credibility..what bulk of his story do we know is false?..If you read the first link that I posted, I think that you'll see that it scuppers that statement my friend...and will explain the stationary Rank one too.

When I first heard the story Philip Corso had to tell I thought, maby this time..... Now, later, no such luck. Lying SOB.

Hi Debunker, and thanks for sharing your position , but why exactly do you opine that the Colonel is such a liar?

ps..I went from excitement to suspicious then directly to disbelief ...but after Salla's paper, i've risen back to suspicious!

Cheers buddy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

1963 405

Psychic Spy

Member

405

1,176 posts

Gender:Male

Location:BEDLAM

When the day is through,and the nightsky shades the blue,and the swallows cease to sing as they fly!.......

Stan says "technically wrong all over the place,well you can blame that on the co-author maybe" *Ahem* the co-author is Bill(ufo hunter)Birnes. Bottom line...three spacecraft crashed the night of July 4,1947 in New Mexico.

Hi meteorlima!

Stan Friedman has always commanded my respect and I have always thought (and still do) that he was one of the good-guys of ufology.

A honourable man that would not knowingly spread falsities to advance any of his ideas!...But I also know that he is human..ergo. not infallible and prone to make the odd mistake!

Cheers .

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 18,085

Stan says "technically wrong all over the place,well you can blame that on the co-author maybe" *Ahem* the co-author is Bill(ufo hunter)Birnes. Bottom line...three spacecraft crashed the night of July 4,1947 in New Mexico.

You are ragging on Bill Birnes, but supporting Chuck Wade???? And Steve Colbern??????????????? Hello Pot, this is Kettle......

No he does not, if you listen the the clip I provided, he engaged a professional with a known military history and he did not provide technicalities all over the place, the engaged professional specifically pointed out exactly 92 inconsistencies. You are trying to just brush that off, but this was after many similar protests outlining these falsifications. To believe Corso has anything of value to tell is pure self delusion. Friedman clearly outlines several specific instances, how do explain those blatant lies? This is not the first attempt to shore up his claims, and I doubt it will be the last. Keeps the Roswell nonsense alive doesn't it.

Funny how Frank Kimbler has just dropped of the radar all of a sudden after his postal stunt.

And no, bottom line is not three spacecraft crashing. I am somewhat stunned someone could convince themselves of such blatant nonsense. Three spacecraft crossing space to fail here is a ludicrous scenario to begin with. It did not happen, you are just Chuck Wades unofficial spokesperson and will say anything to paint him in a favourable light. Fact of the matter is Chuck has been making wild claims for years and Steve Colbern is clearly off his rocker and neither one has been able to substantiate a single claim in decades. If you wish to chase this rainbow, do not attempt to drag me down with you please.

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 18,085

Stan Friedman has always commanded my respect and I have always thought (and still do) that he was one of the good-guys of ufology.

A honourable man that would not knowingly spread falsities to advance any of his ideas!...But I also know that he is human..ergo. not infallible and prone to make the odd mistake!

Cheers .

Yet he provided specific instances. Not generalisations, not guesses, but pointed out lies that have been proven to be lies.

Kinda makes one wonder about your UFO "rant" I have no idea what that was supposed to convey, but it contradicts what you say in this thread. Here you have a person who has been proven to lie, but what maybe something he said was true? That's objective? If so, I expect more "rants" about being led down garden paths.

Why I agree with Mr Friedman in this case is purely that his claim has been substantiated from several sources. But if that collaboration does not have an impression on one, it is easy to see how a light in the sky can suddenly be regarded as an alien spaceship.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 18,085

Simply due to the fact that every technology he references has a clear history of development outside of this Roswell mythology, we know that the bulk of his story is completely false.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that he may have genuinely believed some of the stuff he claimed, but let's face it, for a career military man he didn't really rise very far. He may very well have been given a filing cabinet with stuff in it. But if he was given anything, I'd bet that it was a prank.

Exactly, the marvellous inventions he claims came from the crash (es?) all have a long winded prosaic historial record attached to them. Nothing amazing about those silly claims at all. Funny how a charlatan like this gets so much limelight when the people who intently hang of his every word are likely to be completely oblivious to names like deGrasse Tyson. It's a crying shame.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lilly 18,547

When discussing a book such as the one by Colonel Corso there are going to be varying opinions on the veracity of the author. Not everyone is going to believe the sort of things Colonel Corso is claiming without very strong supporting evidence. Please refrain from name calling and let's not make the discussion personal.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 18,085

When discussing a book such as the one by Colonel Corso there are going to be varying opinions on the veracity of the author. Not everyone is going to believe the sort of things Colonel Corso is claiming without very strong supporting evidence. Please refrain from name calling and let's not make the discussion personal.

I find the problem being that his record as about as stable as Bob Lazars. Some alarming similarities too, claims of services that are completely made up. When even Stanton Friedman gives up on him on a Roswell matter, it's time to close the curtains.

92 individual inconsistencies! That is a great deal in anyone's book! I am not supporting Stanton Friedman or anyone, I am simply pointing out that intensive investigation has been carried out by people with more acceptable qualifications than Chuck Wade (please note it was claimed that Chuck can prove three alien crashes did happen) who can provide definite inconsistencies that prove that a great many of the claims are simply not true. I presented the Friedman clip as it delves into several claims immediately, and if anyone felt these objections were not valid, now had the opportunity to counter each or every one of the allegations. To date, Philip Corso's credibility is more than shaky. It is quite a claim to make that all these inconsistencies can and or have been resolved.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DONTEATUS 3,396

I find the problem being that his record as about as stable as Bob Lazars. Some alarming similarities too, claims of services that are completely made up. When even Stanton Friedman gives up on him on a Roswell matter, it's time to close the curtains.

92 individual inconsistencies! That is a great deal in anyone's book! I am not supporting Stanton Friedman or anyone, I am simply pointing out that intensive investigation has been carried out by people with more acceptable qualifications than Chuck Wade (please note it was claimed that Chuck can prove three alien crashes did happen) who can provide definite inconsistencies that prove that a great many of the claims are simply not true. I presented the Friedman clip as it delves into several claims immediately, and if anyone felt these objections were not valid, now had the opportunity to counter each or every one of the allegations. To date, Philip Corso's credibility is more than shaky. It is quite a claim to make that all these inconsistencies can and or have been resolved.

THe kettle is black call it black If the UFO is real then the Proof is upon the witness. I see no problem with calling Colonel Corso`s statements out for scrutiny of the most in depth kind ! Afterall we just want to see the truth ! Im on your six psyche101.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psyche101 18,085

THe kettle is black call it black If the UFO is real then the Proof is upon the witness. I see no problem with calling Colonel Corso`s statements out for scrutiny of the most in depth kind ! Afterall we just want to see the truth ! Im on your six psyche101.

Cheers mate! Always good to be in the company of our american cousins!

I just don't understand the logic. It befuddles me that some people can say something like "Well, he might have lied 92 times, but maybe one of those claims was not investigated properly and is not a lie at all!" Do people see this as a revelation I wonder? It seems to me to be more like shooting ones self in the foot.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DONTEATUS 3,396

Cheers mate! Always good to be in the company of our american cousins!

I just don't understand the logic. It befuddles me that some people can say something like "Well, he might have lied 92 times, but maybe one of those claims was not investigated properly and is not a lie at all!" Do people see this as a revelation I wonder? It seems to me to be more like shooting ones self in the foot.

With the 'usual suspects' going bumbling-in there, obviously not understanding (or ignoring) the premise of the original post..which was to point out that the ops (ie .. me!) previous understanding of the evidence..or 'lack of' to show that Colonel Corso was a proven liar was based on false information!

And to reveal the source of this new understanding, I posted the source..ie. ..this..

which clearly the Debunker in question duly decided to ignore and instead go into one of his usual acidic rants about "credulous beliefs" etc, and generally trying (but failing) to sound superior. And instead of understanding the post and addressing Mr Salla's paper, he posts a 11 year old video that he found on google (which features a man who's credibility the debunker himself has repeatedly trashed over the years..but suddenly..he's a bona fide source of fact?.. ooh the irony!)

Yes that's right..an 11 year old video in which Stan Friedman states the very doubts about the Colonel's story that are dealt with in Michael Salla's 6 year old paper.

For the record..I have always subscribed to the view that Stan is basically a good guy, and a respectable giant of ufology that has forgotten more than I will ever know about the subject!...But that doesn't mean that he cannot be wrong about some things..and Salla seems to have proven that on this occasion.

Particularly ironic about the debunkers post, bearing in mind his often self-proclaimed superiority via 'scientific empirical methodology' was the emphasis he placed on a quick passage of Stan's interview, in which he said that he had received a letter from a scientist friend of his that outlined "92 corrections to Corso's book"!...Well that's conclusive then!!..?..but then he forgot to mention the scientist's name?...or even post the "92 corrections" for us all to mull over?..I wonder why this is then? Surely such a superior logically minded person would have seen this letter before presenting it as compelling evidence in such a condescending way?...surely?

And then there's the "Stanton Friedman's 'facts' about Mr Corso were believable because they had been substantiated by several other sources"!....which sources?..does he mean Randle and Sparks (two more ufologists that are to be ridiculed on all occasions , except this one!lol.)..the other two who's assertions about Corso Salla shows to be erroneous in his paper?..surely not?

Well, i've come to expect this kind of contradictory content from this confrontational poster...but i've noticed that lately, there seems to be even more venom directed towards my posts!...I don't know why?..Especially when I clearly stated in the original post that I don't even believe Colonel Corso's story!..But merely stated that I found it interesting! ..Even more so, now that Mr Salla has pointed out that the evidence to 'prove' the Colonel's story is all lies, is itself on shaky ground!...(ergo , the thread wasn't really about Philip Corso in the first place!..but rather Salla's debunking of the hatchet-job done on him and his reputation!)

I did not think so. The link has been raised and discussed here before, I was pointing out the credibility of the claims and why people discredited Corso to begin with. That would be in line with an overview would it not? You jumped straight to Michael Salla's personal view without explaining why Corso would be doubted in the first place. That is only half the information in my opinion. I felt you left the entire story short, but I have come to expect that from you. I find that you like to steer things into a mysterious direction when none exist.

With the 'usual suspects' going bumbling-in there, obviously not understanding (or ignoring) the premise of the original post..which was to point out that the ops (ie .. me!) previous understanding of the evidence..or 'lack of' to show that Colonel Corso was a proven liar was based on false information!

And to reveal the source of this new understanding, I posted the source..ie. ..this..

Usual suspects? Man up. You mean me. You could show the fortitude to adress me directly, and exposing another side of your topics is what this place is for. It is not a blog. Opposing opinions exist no matter how much you wish they would just go away.

This is typical of you "bumbling" is just another veiled insult that you have directed at me. You have done so since day one so this comes as no surprise at all.

All I did was post a source to meteorlima that contradicted the view of Michael Salla and ask you what you thought of Friedmans statements and what you hoped to accomplish with that link. All I can see, as I mentioned earlier is that you feel some of the allegations are on shaky ground. That is hardly reason to completely turn around on the general consensus and many evaluations of Philip Corso's claims. All of which you have ignored over this one source.

which clearly the Debunker in question duly decided to ignore and instead go into one of his usual acidic rants about "credulous beliefs" etc, and generally trying (but failing) to sound superior. And instead of understanding the post and addressing Mr Salla's paper, he posts a 11 year old video that he found on google (which features a man who's credibility the debunker himself has repeatedly trashed over the years..but suddenly..he's a bona fide source of fact?.. ooh the irony!)

As I have said, it is not the first time that link has been presented. I am sure it was McGuffin who presented it before.

Can you please link to the post where I say that I take Stanton Friedmans word? I cannot remember saying that. I said the collaboration of his position is convincing enough to show that the Salla claim is more than dubious. My opinion that Mr Friedman is zealous with regards to witness recollections remains as it always has. This is not discussing recollections is it? It is directly exposing the claims made for what they are regarding seeding alien technology and his service record. Salla makes apologetic excuses, he cannot dismiss what is asserted in the clip with Mr Friedman in it. All he does is water down the claims made by Corso saying he was a member of the NSC, not a direct participant. Why I posted Mr Friedman himself over others is because of the way you always paint him to be the salt of the earth and one of the best investigators on the planet. His view and information is in direct opposition to what Michael Salla's paper states. By the way, I find this version much easier to read - LINK Salla's objection to Friedmans evaluation revolves around the NSC membership/employment issue. But Friedmans complaints go beyond that don't they?

But why don't we just get the the crux of Corso's claims that are obviously erroneous. The technology. Does anyone in their right mind accept Coro's claims about technology being garnered from the Roswell crash? Not even you, so I ask the same question I did from you before that you lacked the fortitude to broach. If you know his recollection contains obvious lies, what is the point of trying to validate individual and minor inconsistencies? Is it expected that all the ridiculous claims of feeding contractors advanced technology will just go away? Would that mean the Roswell media version of events is true "in places" What do you hope to accomplish with finding a way to alleviate the burden of proof on Mr Corso?

Yes that's right..an 11 year old video in which Stan Friedman states the very doubts about the Colonel's story that are dealt with in Michael Salla's 6 year old paper.

Would you mind posting what has changed in those years? What is Mr Friedman's position today? If there is a change of heart, I would much appreciate it if you could post it. After all, I was pointing out the original reason for the paper, it seems prudent to me to have both up for discussion wouldn't you say? The paper has had absolutely no effect on Mr Friedman's presentation, nor Kevin Randles objections.

For the record..I have always subscribed to the view that Stan is basically a good guy, and a respectable giant of ufology that has forgotten more than I will ever know about the subject!...But that doesn't mean that he cannot be wrong about some things..and Salla seems to have proven that on this occasion.

A giant of UFOlogy I would grant, but respected by believers, not all. I never said that I respected him during the course of this thread, I held him up as an example to the seemingly conflicting threads you have been putting up.

Particularly ironic about the debunkers post, bearing in mind his often self-proclaimed superiority via 'scientific empirical methodology' was the emphasis he placed on a quick passage of Stan's interview, in which he said that he had received a letter from a scientist friend of his that outlined "92 corrections to Corso's book"!...Well that's conclusive then!!..?..but then he forgot to mention the scientist's name?...or even post the "92 corrections" for us all to mull over?..I wonder why this is then? Surely such a superior logically minded person would have seen this letter before presenting it as compelling evidence in such a condescending way?...surely?

No, I had hoped Stanton Friedman was not an out and out liar. He may be zealous but he does show his methodology and even showed up the notorious Philip Klass on one occasion being able to back his assertions. Are you saying that Friedman would be out and out lying here, because I had not actually considered that even he would drop to such a level. Does it not matter that the inconsistencies are agreed upon by Kevin Randle? Does collaboration mean nothing? And you mistake disbelief for being condescending, but then again, you rarely get the meaning of what I try to convey. I never understood that. I am lengthy and wordy in my posts to avoid such confusion, and for most cases, that method is successful.

You know what does mean something to me? That Salla is an outspoken proponent of Bob Lazar. If that is not a red flag, I do not know what would be.

And then there's the "Stanton Friedman's 'facts' about Mr Corso were believable because they had been substantiated by several other sources"!....which sources?..does he mean Randle and Sparks (two more ufologists that are to be ridiculed on all occasions , except this one!lol.)..the other two who's assertions about Corso Salla shows to be erroneous in his paper?..surely not?

Yes I mean Kevin Randle specifically. You should have built up the courage to simply ask me instead of trying to guess.

Kevin Randle is ridiculed on all occasions? I see him ridiculed by people like Chuck Wade sure. Other than that I have expressed respect for Mr Randle's investigations many times over the years. I do not agree with him on Roswell, regardless I find his investigations second to no UFOlogist in the field today. He has more experience in the UFO field, and military than Salla does. I would be obliged if you could dig up a post whereby I have directly attacked Brad Sparks as well if you please. And I would be very interested to see where I dismiss Kevin Randle while you are at it. I quoted Kevin Randle extensively when discussing Frank Kimbler.

And because Kevin Randle is not mentioned in this paper, the information that Randle decides makes Corso unreliable is instantly dismissed? Why is that?

And what substantiates the Salla claim of:

According to Kevin Randle, Corso had made some public statements of having been officially associated with the secretive Majestic 12 (MJ-12) Group created to manage the UFO phenomenon.

Dr Randle concludes that the absence of documentary support for such claim suggests that Corso was prone to embellishing his service background, therefore his testimony is unreliable. Randle dismissively writes: “I find the references to his personal involvement in MJ-12 to be the smoking gun about the credibility of the book.”

And following the links to substantiate these claims by Salla leads to:

404 Error File Not Found

The page you are looking for might have been removed,

had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

What a surprise. Yet Kevin Randles take is online, and seems to largely disagree with what Salla has claimed he said:

If you read the book, you’ll find no claim that Corso was a member of MJ-12, either as a primary, alternate or assistant. Corso’s story has nothing to do with MJ-12 or any such committee other than in passing.

Kevin Randle has absolutely no problem whatsoever with addressing the claims made. He allows Michael Salla to post a response to his critique in Kevin's very own blog, which I would have said was rather sporting of Kevin, wouldn't you?

And guess what. Kevin's reference links actually go where they say they do!

Well, i've come to expect this kind of contradictory content from this confrontational poster...but i've noticed that lately, there seems to be even more venom directed towards my posts!...I don't know why?..Especially when I clearly stated in the original post that I don't even believe Colonel Corso's story!..But merely stated that I found it interesting! ..Even more so, now that Mr Salla has pointed out that the evidence to 'prove' the Colonel's story is all lies, is itself on shaky ground!...(ergo , the thread wasn't really about Philip Corso in the first place!..but rather Salla's debunking of the hatchet-job done on him and his reputation!)

Cheers.

Of course you would expect it, I question everything. What is wrong with being confrontational? You are asking that I be passive and simply agree with you?

And did the clip I presented address these very claims that you say Mr Salla has falsified. What it comes down to is that you do not like an opposing viewpoint and you have expressed that in the way of veiled insult from day one. What venom was directed at you in this thread? All I said is that I find this subject in direct contradiction with your "rant" thread which I believe is indeed the case. This is exactly the type of nonsense that you say creates so much confusion that one just about gives up on trying to find something genuine, and yet here you are with this second chance for a story completely full of holes because you found one source that tries to "make a name" by attempting to discredit more experienced and better investigators in the field.

I find that with any subject that you are involved with challenging the veracity of any UFO claim is always considered no more than character assassination. There is no way to debate a subject unless one is on the ET positive side with you is there?